(1) Private nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of their property. It requires an interference or recurrent state of affairs. (2) Types of private nuisance include obstruction of rights of way, interference with drainage systems causing flooding, indiscriminate excavation causing subsidence, vibration damage to neighboring buildings, radiation affecting health, and fallen trees endangering highways. (3) Whether an activity constitutes a nuisance depends on factors like the character of the defendant's conduct, balancing interests, the extent of harm, nature of the locality, utility of the conduct, abnormal sensitivity, intention to cause injury, and temporary vs ongoing interference. Reasonableness, locality, and the sensitivity of the

1. PRIVATE NUISANCE
INTRODUCTION
(1) Private Nuisance (Pr.N) is an
unlawful interference with:
(i) a person`s use or enjoyment of
property
(ii) or some right over or in
connection with it
(iii)state of affairs must be
connection or recurrent
(2) Every slight annoyance is not
actionable unless.H/ever it depends
on variety of consideration:
(i) character of defendant`s conduct
(ii)balancing of conflicting interest
TYPES OF PRIVATE
NUISANCE
(1) NUISANCE TO
SERVITITUDE AND RIPARIAN
RIGHTS
This includes
(i) Obstruction of right of
ways. Once P has suffered a
substantial degre of interference
is enough. D cannot say that his
activity benefit the community or
he has taken care to avoid
damage to P. His conduct is
irrelevant.
Hiap Lee (Cheong Leong &
Sons) Brickmakers v Weng
Lok Mining
( R built reservoir on their land and the water
had escaped and caused damage to P`s
land. Held R is liable in negligence and
nuisance but FC held no liability at all and
confirmed by Privy Council.
Khan Mohamed v Katz
Brothers.(Act of driving piles in river
boundry to prevent erosion but which
obstruct use of water held nuisance but P
can claim damage)
Toyo Textiles Ind. v Lian
Foong Housing Dev.
(P filed their land with soil higher than P`s
land at the common boundary causing
natural blockage of a natural stream and
cause large pool in P`s land.Held D acted
unreasonably and liable).
(ii) Interference with drainage
system and cause flood on
neigboring land may also be
Private Nuisance.
Ng Cheng Kee & ors v Loh
Peng Kong(D constructed a new
drainage on his land and cause water
flooded P`s paddy field.Held liable becox
causing substantial injury to P`s caltivation of
pady)
(2) INDISCRIMINATE EXCAVATION
Wisma Punca Emas Sd. Bhd v Dr
Donal R O`Holohan
P and D were registered adjoining land in Seremban.
As a result of developing works carried out by D
caused the land sink. P sought injunction.Held the
indiscriminate excavation and removal of earth stone
and clay from D`s land w/out taking sufficient
precaution caused the sinking and D is liable for
actionable nuisance.
(3) VIBRATION
Damage caused to neigbouring
building by vibration from pilling works
is actionable.
Asia Insurance Co. Ltd v Chan Wing
& Sons Realty.
(D who caused structural damage to adjacement
property were held liable to the owners of such
property for nuisance.)
(4) RADIATION
Woon Tan Kan & ors v Asian Rare
Earth Bhd.
(P seek injunction to stop ARE from collecting &
storring radioactive substance which effect the health
of the neigbouring residents.Held:
(1) such radiactive substance is higly dangerous to
human DNA cell
(2) ARE constributed substantial interefrence and
discomfort of enjoyment of land to P and so caused
annoyance, therefore injunction granted.
But Supreme court allow the appeal but ARE was
closed by themselve)
(5) FALLEN TREE ON HIGHWAY
An estate owner growing rubber trees ad his land
adjoining with highway is expected as a reasonable
man to inspect the trees from time to time so that if
treest fall on highway and caused danger to to road
user.
Len Omnibus Co. v North South
Transport Sdn Bhd.(lorry masuk jalan elak
tree)
EXTENT OF THE HARM &
NATURE OF THE LOCALTY
St. Helen`s Smelthing Co. v
Tipping (Leading case)
P owned a rubber estate which was situated in
an industrial area. The smoke from the factory
caused considerable damage to P`s trees.Lord
Westbury distinguishes the following:
(i) sensible injury to the value
of the property or material injury (Physical injury)
Here the locality surrounding circumstance is
irrelavant.No matter where theP is, he must be
protected from physical damage.
(ii)injury in term of personal discomfort (non
physical damage)Here the level of interference
must be balanced with the surrounding
circumstance and the locality must be taken into
consideration.
Court allow the claim.
Pacific Engineering Ltd. V Hj.
Ahmad Rice Mill Ltd.
(HC: the P had produced suffient evidence to
show injury to property and interferencewith
personal comfot caused by smoke, husk,dust
and ashes and it constitiuted Nuisance)
CONCEPT OF REASONABLENESS
Reasonableness is the central issue in case of NUISANCE
.Whether the D conduct is acording to the ordinary usages of
mankind living in a particular society.Here the factors
considered is the balancing between interest of D and the
competing rights of neigbour , a process of compromise and
rule of give and take.
Syarikat Perniagaan Selangor Sdn Bhd. V Fahro Rozi
Mohdi.(Ct will take into account all circumstances of particular case to determine
whether or not defendants act is unreasonable to constitute nuisance.)
THE UTILITY OF THE
DEFENDANT`S CONDUCT
Ct will look into the utility or the
general benefit to the community
arising fron the defendant`s
conduct. Public is required to
accept this.But if serious damage
is caused than the issue of
tolerance must be give way.
Bellew v Cement Co.
(Ireland`s only cement factory which produced
cement during war was ordered to be shut down
because it causes serious harm to public.)
Miller v Jackson
(Ct held the social utility of the club in promoting
games of cricket outweighed the P`s interest.)
ABNORMAL SENSIVITY
Law does not take into account
the abnormal sensivity of person
or property.
Heath v Major of Brighton
(P trustees of a church, sought an injunction
to restrain noise from D`s electrical power
station Held: Refused to grant an injunction
becox there was no proof that the noise
affected the congregation except the
incumbent he was not prevented for
preaching or conducting his service).
Robinson v Kilvert
(D began manufacture paper boxes in the
cellar of a house. His business required hot
air and dry air and he heated the cellar
accordingly.P occupied the premises above
and stored brown paper there. The heat from
celar dried and diminished the value of brown
paper. D is not liable.`a man who carries on
anexceptionally delicate trade cannot
complain becox it is injured by his neigbour
doing something lawful on his property, if it is
something which would not injure anything
but exceptionally delicate trade.)
TEMPORARY INJURY
If nuisance is temporary and
occasional ct will not
Grant injunction except in extreme
cases.It is becox damages is
enough in such cases.
Stone v Bolton (P while standing near
highway cricket ball hit him from the adjacement
cricket gr.Held that an isolated act of hitting a
cricket ball into the road cannot amount to
nuisance.
Leong Bee & Co. v Ling Nam
Rubber(Fire broke out at early morning from
D`s building and burned down P`s building.
Federal Court dismiss the claim for
nuisance/negligence.PC held no proof that D
broughtfire to his land.)
MALICE OR THE PURPOSE OF
D`s CONDUCT
Generally malice is not relevant
factor in torts. H/ever in nuisance
the ct take into account the main
object of defendant`s activities.If
main object is to injurehis
neighbour then his intention is
highly relevant.
Christie v Davey
(P`s frequent music lessons annoyed D and D
deliberately retaliated by knocking the wall
separating the premises.Ct granted injunction
and held D`s conduct maliciously to annoy P)
Hollywood Silver Farm v
Emmett(D deliberately fired his gun during P
breeding his silver fox at neigbouring land. This
is sensitive to the fox. Held motiinetention of D is
relevant and held liable).